Could this be the new trend for Gays and Christianity?

[Greatest I Am]

I have never though that Gays should be discriminated and denigrated by all the religions that do so.

To me, sin has to have a victim and with adult gays, there is none.

Could this be the new trend for Gays and Christianity?

I hope so.

Do you?

Regards
DL

[Benoni]

Sorry bad post.

I pretty much agree with you statement; my point is there is a higher level of love then lust.

Love and lust may come from many common grounds and there is nothing wrong with loving some one of the same sex. But there is a big difference between love and lust. Nor am I saying your love for your parner is any difference then my love for my wife.

I'm missing something here. Not understanding what point you are making.

I love my husband. Sometimes I lust after him. Makes for great sex. When I am in a gentle, loving, and caressing mood, that makes for great sex too.

In the past, if I lusted after someone and had sex with them without being in love with them or in a relationship, I was often left with an ugly opinion of myself. I believe this ugly opinion was a result of being raised to believe sex without love or marriage was a sin. I most certainly believe it is possible to love life, oneself, and ones fellow human beings to the point that sex is a celebration of that love without a personal committment to one person.

Oh. I thought perhaps you were pointing out to me where I was confusing the two. Were you? Did I miss something. Still confused.

[Mohana]

Sorry bad post.

I highly doubt that. Just because I didn't get it...

[micatala]

Moderator Warning

You should sell this to NAMBLA, they're always looking for good material to support their cause.

Moderator intervention:

This is irrelevant, sarcastic, and is not conducive for civil debate. Please avoid comments such as these.

It is not irrelevant or sarcastic, nor was it meant to be. Her statement, "In my opinion, the sex act is the highest expression of love between two people who are in love with each other," is precisely what Man-boy love advocates argue. Notice that NAMBLA is the "...man-boy love association", not the "pedophile" association, a label more likely to come from those outside their group.

They, too, believe that the sex act is the highest expression of two people in love. They use the same arguments, including the arguments that sex between consenting parties is victimless. The difference is that they are in the minority in believing that boys of a certain age can truly consent. They have an argument which has validity to it but is dismissed out of hand because they are such a minority.

Gays used to be in the same position that NAMBLA types are in today. If there is no, or should be no limits in relationships, then NAMBLA (and other sexual relationships) will need to be given a chance and a fair hearing at some point, also.

I'm sure we will be seeing more and more groups gaining prominence in their causes. I believe once gay marriage become more accepted, polygamous/polyamorous marriages will be next to have their fight seriously considered and ultimately accepted, and sometime soon after that there will also be allowance made for incestuous relationships between/amongst adults.

Ultimately NAMBLA types will make headway in getting their relationships with teens under 18 (as there are teens under 18 who are allowed to enter into heterosexual marriage with people over 3 years older than them if parental consent is given, e.g. Priscilla Presley). After that, I doubt they'll get their way with kids under 13 or 14, but who knows?

I just find the whole idea of allowing certain types of sexual relationships as "OK" while excluding others on a basis that there is no morality other than what society decides to be hypocritical as you have these various groups seeking approval and each one is willing to exclude the other groups if they can get their approval. For example, proponents of gay marriage will fight for that right while actively excluding polygamists from the redefinition of marriage; it's exactly like the old scenario where the Catholics fought for their "equal right" to be in the WASP-dominated country club, but once in, they were happy to deny others (like Jews) their "equal right" to be allowed in.

Two things.

The first is that challenges made to modertor actions should be made only via PM, not within the thread. This is in the rules.


The second is that you are free to make the case you are making in this post, but the original post did not provide any of this background and functioned essentially as a one-liner and possibly inflammatory.

[Euphrates]

To me, sin has to have a victim and with adult gays, there is none.

That is simply your opinion.

Absolutely.
Am I not allowed to have an opinion other than what your book says?

You can have all the opinions you want, but in THIS case, the discussion is about how Christianity should respond to homosexuality, and your opinion is not shared by Christianity or the Bible.

In other words, you're talking about things from a non-Christian perspective while this discussion is supposed to be about the Christian perspective. No one is trying to silence your voice, but find an appropriate place.

Does idolatry have a victim?

I think so yes. One victimizes oneself by closing his mind to other possibilities.
This may not be a true sin but it is unhealthy.

You've apparently redefined idolatry. In fact, you may have reversed the definition. It's hard to tell. In any case, you've admitted that whatever you're talking about isn't a sin... so why are you talking about it?

[Greatest I Am]

Love and lust may come from many common grounds and there is nothing wrong with loving some one of the same sex. But there is a big difference between love and lust. Nor am I saying your love for your parner is any difference then my love for my wife.

I love my sons as a father; I love my grandkids, my wife.

I think we are christians are missing God when we do not show love for all people no matter what their life styles.

My relationship with God is of a higher nature then lust, and so is my relationship with my kids and Gkids.

I was taught growing up that Jesus called us to live in love. Is religion claiming there is right love and a wrong love?

If two gay persons are in love, I don't see how consumating that love is in error or a sin. In my opinion, the sex act is the highest expression of love between two people who are in love with each other.

This is along the same lines of thinking that only Christians can do good or be good or are good or... I volunteer at a local animal shelter along with Christians. Are my acts of love and charity worthless because I am an Atheist? I'm sure the dogs can't tell the difference.

Gays feel lust for their partners like any other heterosexual couple.
Benoni, are you suggesting that Gays can love each other mentaly but you draw the line of your blessing at sex.

Say it isn't so for God sake. That would be a really--oops I am already in warning mode--silly wily notion.

Your post was brief. I hope I mis-understood.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I Am]

To me, sin has to have a victim and with adult gays, there is none.

That is simply your opinion.

Absolutely.
Am I not allowed to have an opinion other than what your book says?

You can have all the opinions you want, but in THIS case, the discussion is about how Christianity should respond to homosexuality, and your opinion is not shared by Christianity or the Bible.

Is that not a Christian church in the link I provided?
The Christian church has two factions. one is enlightened, while yours is backward.

In other words, you're talking about things from a non-Christian perspective while this discussion is supposed to be about the Christian perspective. No one is trying to silence your voice, but find an appropriate place.

This the exact place.

Does idolatry have a victim?

I think so yes. One victimizes oneself by closing his mind to other possibilities.
This may not be a true sin but it is unhealthy.

You've apparently redefined idolatry. In fact, you may have reversed the definition. It's hard to tell. In any case, you've admitted that whatever you're talking about isn't a sin... so why are you talking about it?

Because you are idolizing a book and as I pointed out it is unhealthy. It seems to have made you homophobic. Thank God there are good doctors that can help you with that. Don't delay. Your morality is at stake.

Regards
DL

[Benoni]

What I am saying is the love of God's towards us has nothing to do with sex be it homosexual or heterosexual.


Below is a direct quote from the Vines Expoxitory Dictionay of NT words. Notice the various words for love and how they are used.


LOVE (NOUN AND VERB)

A. Verbs.

1. agapao NT:25 and the corresponding noun agape (B, No. 1 below) present "the characteristic word of Christianity, and since the Spirit of revelation has used it to express ideas previously unknown, inquiry into its use, whether in Greek literature or in the Septuagint, throws but little light upon its distinctive meaning in the NT. Cf, however, Lev 19:18; Deut 6:5.
"Agape and agapao are used in the NT (a) to describe the attitude of God toward His Son, John 17:26; the human race, generally, John 3:16; Rom 5:8, and to such as believe on the Lord Jesus Christ particularly John 14:21; (b) to convey His wiil to His children concerning their attitude one toward another, John 13:34, and toward all men, 1 Thess 3:12; 1 Cor 16:14; 2 Peter 1:7; (c) to express the essential nature of God, 1 John 4:8.
"Love can be known only from the actions it prompts. God's love is seen in the gift of His Son, 1 John 4:9,10. But obviously this is not the love of complacency, or affection, that is, it was not drawn out by any excellency in its objects, Rom 5:8. It was an exercise of the divine will in deliberate choice, made without assignable cause save that which lies in the nature of God Himself, Cf. Deut 7:7,8.
"Love had its perfect expression among men in the Lord Jesus Christ, 2 Cor 5:14; Eph 2:4; 3:19; 5:2; Christian love is the fruit of His Spirit in the Christian, Gal 5:22.
"Christian love has God for its primary object, and expresses itself first of all in implicit obedience to His commandments, John 14:15,21,23; 15:10; 1 John 2:5; 5:3; 2 John 6. Selfwill, that is, self-pleasing, is the negation of love to God.
"Christian love, whether exercised toward the brethren, or toward men generally, is not an impulse from the feelings, it does not always run with the natural inclinations, nor does it spend itself only upon those for whom some affinity is discovered. Love seeks the welfare of all, Rom 15:2, and works no ill to any, 13:8,9,10; love seeks opportunity to do good to 'all men, and especially toward them that are of the household of the faith,' Gal 6:10. See further 1 Cor 13 and Col 3:12-14."
From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine, p. 105.
In respect of agapao as used of God, it expresses the deep and constant "love" and interest of a perfect Being towards entirely unworthy objects, producing and fostering a reverential "love" in them towards the Giver, and a practical "love" towards those who are partakers of the same, and a desire to help others to seek the Giver. See BELOVED.

2. phileo NT:5368 is to be distinguished from agapao in this, that phileo more nearly represents "tender affection." The two words are used for the "love" of the Father for the Son, John 3:35 (No. 1), and 5:20 (No. 2); for the believer, 14:21 (No. 1) and 16:27 (No. 2); both, of Christ's "love" for a certain disciple, 13:23 (No. 1), and 20:2 (No. 2). Yet the distinction between the two verbs remains, and they are never used indiscriminately in the same passage; if each is used with reference to the same objects, as just mentioned, each word retains its distinctive and essential character.
Phileo is never used in a command to men to "love" God; it is, however, used as a warning in 1 Cor 16:22; agapao is used instead, e. g., Matt 22:37; Luke 10:27; Rom 8:28; 1 Cor 8:3; 1 Peter 1:8; 1 John 4:21. The distinction between the two verbs finds a conspicuous instance in the narrative of John 21:15-17. The context itself indicates that agapao in the first two questions suggests the "love" that values and esteems (cf. Rev 12:11). It is an unselfish "love," ready to serve. The use of phileo in Peter's answers and the Lord's third question, conveys the thought of cherishing the Object above all else, of manifesting an affection characterized by constancy, from the motive of the highest veneration. See also Trench, Syn., Sec. xii.
Again, to "love" (phileo) life, from an undue desire to preserve it, forgetful of the real object of living, meets with the Lord's reproof, John 12:25. On the contrary, to "love" life (agapao) as used in 1 Peter 3:10, is to consult the true interests of living. Here the word phileo would be quite inappropriate.
Note: In Mark 12:38, KJV, thelo, "to wish," is translated "love" (RV, "desire").
B. Nouns.

1. agape NT:26, the significance of which has been pointed out in connection with A, No. 1, is always rendered "love" in the RV where the KJV has "charity," a rendering nowhere used in the RV; in Rom 14:15, where the KJV has "charitably," the RV, adhering to the translation of the noun, has "in love."
Note: In the two statements in 1 John 4:8 and 16, "God is love," both are used to enjoin the exercise of "love" on the part of believers. While the former introduces a declaration of the mode in which God's love has been manifested vv. 9,10, the second introduces a statement of the identification of believers with God in character, and the issue at the Judgment Seat hereafter v. 17, an identification represented ideally in the sentence "as He is, so are we in this world."
2. philanthropia NT:5363 denotes, lit., "love for man" (phileo and anthropos, "man"); hence, "kindness," Acts 28:2, in Titus 3:4, "(His) love toward man." Cf. the adverb philanthropos, "humanely, kindly," Acts 27:3.
Note: For philarguria, "love of money," 1 Tim 6:10, see MONEY (love of). For philadelphia, see BROTHER, Note (1).
(from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright (c)1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

Love and lust may come from many common grounds and there is nothing wrong with loving some one of the same sex. But there is a big difference between love and lust. Nor am I saying your love for your parner is any difference then my love for my wife.

I love my sons as a father; I love my grandkids, my wife.

I think we are christians are missing God when we do not show love for all people no matter what their life styles.

My relationship with God is of a higher nature then lust, and so is my relationship with my kids and Gkids.

I was taught growing up that Jesus called us to live in love. Is religion claiming there is right love and a wrong love?

If two gay persons are in love, I don't see how consumating that love is in error or a sin. In my opinion, the sex act is the highest expression of love between two people who are in love with each other.

This is along the same lines of thinking that only Christians can do good or be good or are good or... I volunteer at a local animal shelter along with Christians. Are my acts of love and charity worthless because I am an Atheist? I'm sure the dogs can't tell the difference.

Gays feel lust for their partners like any other heterosexual couple.
Benoni, are you suggesting that Gays can love each other mentaly but you draw the line of your blessing at sex.

Say it isn't so for God sake. That would be a really--oops I am already in warning mode--silly wily notion.

Your post was brief. I hope I mis-understood.

Regards
DL

[Euphrates]

This thread began with a simple argument:

To me, sin has to have a victim and with adult gays, there is none.

I have argued against your premise that "sin has to have a victim." If we are defining "victim" as someone other than the person committing the act, then idolatry, which doesn't have a victim, but is still a sin, is the counterexample proving your premise to be false and your argument to be unsound.

Branding my "faction" of Christianity as "backward" doesn't fix your flawed argument.

[Benoni]

Sin is a factor in this world. We all sin and come short of the glory of God. That is why we need Jesus blood which reversed the curse.

This thread began with a simple argument:

To me, sin has to have a victim and with adult gays, there is none.

I have argued against your premise that "sin has to have a victim." If we are defining "victim" as someone other than the person committing the act, then idolatry, which doesn't have a victim, but is still a sin, is the counterexample proving your premise to be false and your argument to be unsound.

Branding my "faction" of Christianity as "backward" doesn't fix your flawed argument.

[Greatest I Am]

This thread began with a simple argument:

To me, sin has to have a victim and with adult gays, there is none.

I have argued against your premise that "sin has to have a victim." If we are defining "victim" as someone other than the person committing the act, then idolatry, which doesn't have a victim, but is still a sin, is the counterexample proving your premise to be false and your argument to be unsound.

Branding my "faction" of Christianity as "backward" doesn't fix your flawed argument.

Your right it does not. It just shows your backward and immoral thinking.

I must have missed your learned argument on idol worship being a sin.

Who is hurt by my idol worship of, lets say the philosophy of Star Trek while ignoring any other religious or political philosophy or constructs?

How about adultery when both the man and wife are both involved in swapping.
Is that a sin and why is it if open and free and a lifestyle they both like?

There is no victim in both of the scenarios given. Why call them sins.

Perhaps getting away from your homophobia will help clear your thinking.

Regards
DL